Suburban Updates - All Other Metro Vancouver Municipalities

[GlassCity]

Definitely the most urban "new build" downtown in the metro.

[Metro-One]

Richmond gets my vote as well.

I would list North Van as fourth.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Construction of Coquitlam's first purpose-built rental in 40 years gets underway

2 ½ year permitting delay drives up costs, meaning final rental rates uncertain

By Clare Hennig, CBC News Posted: Mar 06, 2018 1:03 PM PT


A rendering of what the new rental project will look like when it's completed. It's currently under construction at the corner of Charland Avenue and Blue Mountain Street, in the Austin Heights neighbourhood and will have 41 market rental units. (Redbrick Properties)

Renters across Metro Vancouver continue to feel the strain of the housing affordability crisis and Coquitlam is no different.

The city, like other municipalities across the province, is looking to reduce the high cost of rental housing and is pushing for more purpose-built rentals.

Later this month, the first one in 40 years is set to break ground.

Mayor Richard Stewart says the fact no purpose-built rentals were constructed for decades is part of the reason rents are currently so high.

"I predicted it back in the '90s that if we didn't start building more rental housing … all of our rental housing would reach 40-years-old at the same time and we wouldn't have any 30-year-old or 20-year-old rental housing that becomes the next decade's affordable rentals," he said.

Tax incentives to built rentals "dried up" decades ago and so developers stopped focusing on rental construction, he told Stephen Quinn, the host of CBC's The Early Edition.

"That was our challenge — how do we foster the creation of more rentals?" he said.

A quarter of households in Coquitlam rent, and of those, nearly half spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rental housing.

Rising costs
The cost of these new rental units is still unclear, however, and the developer of the project, Redbrick Properties, says it won't be able to estimate it until construction is completed.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...lt-rental-in-40-years-underway-1.4564621

the location - just south of the petro canada
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2480925,-...D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

This is massive and other cities need to do this. This is the ONLY way to help the rental affordability in metro Vancouver. Not some magical empty home tax that will accomplish nothing at all except pad the City's budget to allow them to throw away more money into the toilet.

Every "rent only" dense project should be applauded. Unfortunately it seems like this is only starting to happen in the suburbs, we need to see it start full swing in Vancouver itself, maybe even Burnaby the way prices are going.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Richmond is laying a much better groundwork then most cities. It's got a long way to go but I think within another decade perhaps 15yrs we'll be looking at Richmond and wishing Burnaby and Surrey had followed it's example.

Cliff notes? I haven't been to Richmond in longer than I can honestly remember. Unless you count going to the airport.

[Tetsuo]

The feds should re introduce the old incentives to boost development of rentals

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Definitely the most urban "new build" downtown in the metro.

Meh, it is very bland and still strung out along No. 3 Road. North Van and Lower Lonsdale feel way more urban.

And Richmond still has a long way to go in basic civics. Witness the negativity over one modular housing proposal for the homeless below. I'm sick of the 'Burbs expecting Vancouverites to shoulder the burden of housing the Metro areas homeless population:

Homeless advocates say they will need to step up their support for a proposed temporary, modular housing complex in the wake of a well-organized attempt — including from realtors — to block its constriction at 7300 Elmbridge Way.

De Whalen, chair of the Richmond Poverty Response Committee, has written to her members and others in the non-profit sector to inform them a group of realtors is helping petition within the neighbourhood to block the 40-unit project by BC Housing, which is to be operated by RainCity Housing and Support Society.

“The opposition appears to be in two main areas: Lack of process and safety. But underlying these concerns is a fear that property values will decrease,” said Whalen.

Coun. Harold Steves took to Twitter to point out similar concerns being expressed in Chinese social media. One post Steves mentioned states that if there’s housing for homeless then “list prices plunge.”

But Steves questioned the logic: “But this housing is for homeless people already sleeping in the streets of City Centre. Where do we move the homeless people to?”

Whalen said the petition raises the fact that the housing will be placed on a temporary off-leash dog park.

“The petition actually said dogs should have fair treatment and should not be deprived as they are family members.”...

http://www.richmond-news.com/news/richmo...omeless-housing-says-advocate-1.23190515

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Every "rent only" dense project should be applauded. Unfortunately it seems like this is only starting to happen in the suburbs, we need to see it start full swing in Vancouver itself, maybe even Burnaby the way prices are going.

It is going full swing in Vancouver compared to most other municipalities. If you look at CMHC's data in the January 2018 'Housing Now'. there were 7,343 rental homes under construction in Metro Vancouver, and 3,388 of them were in the City of Vancouver - over 25% of all the homes under construction in the city. There were only 476 in Surrey, 8% of the total under construction, and there were 955 in Burnaby, 12% of the total there. New Westminster was impressive - it had over 1,000 rentals under construction from a total of 2,200.

This doesn't include rentals in condo buildings bought as investment - these are all purpose built rental units. It also doesn't account for the loss of existing rental units, which is greater in Burnaby than anywhere else. In Vancouver for example the majority of rental buildings are protected from net loss of rental. If you look at the CMHC Vancouver rental market report, Vancouver gains a net 1,632 units in four years to 2017, and Burnaby lost 582. In comparison Surrey added 17 units in 4 years, while New Westminster added 343.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Meh, it is very bland and still strung out along No. 3 Road. North Van and Lower Lonsdale feel way more urban

This is laughable and literally no one agrees with you. North van and lonsdale lack the height and density to be considered more "urban" than downtown Richmond. But you have a ridiculous bias against Richmond for some reason

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by libtard

This is laughable and literally no one agrees with you. North van and lonsdale lack the height and density to be considered more "urban" than downtown Richmond. But you have a ridiculous bias against Richmond for some reason

LOL, "literally no one agrees with me". Really, how many of you live in Richmond. The "downtown" is bland with nothing of any real character, a table top skyline all pumped out over the last 10-15 years with few interesting streetfront businesses and no focal point. No. 3 Road is more like Kingsway and then any downtown High Street. A mall across from a Skytrain station does not an urban core make.

Lower Lonsdale on the other hand has a real focal point on the water, historic buildings mixed with new and a new art gallery.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, "literally no one agrees with me". Really, how many of you live in Richmond. The "downtown" is bland with nothing of any real character, a table top skyline all pumped out over the last 10-15 years with few interesting streetfront businesses and no focal point. No. 3 Road is more like Kingsway and then any downtown High Street. A mall across from a Skytrain station does not an urban core make.

Lower Lonsdale on the other hand has a real focal point on the water, historic buildings mixed with new and a new art gallery.

Yeah, very fair of you to compare one town centre which has been around for more than a century, versus one that is carved out of farm/industrial lands just a couple of decades ago. Everyone is pointing to the direction that Richmond's City Centre is going, not pointing to its glorious past. It is already a very vibrant district in the Lower Mainland, and truly feels like a downtown, despite its lack of history and waterfront.

Richmond just seems "bland" to you since you are allergic to almost anything from China, IMHO.

Does this feel like "Kingsway" to you??!
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.1722871,-...YvrxIiMpWUWK4lA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Or this?
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.1673947,-...MozprzUK6UOE86Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[Vin]

Originally Posted by libtard

This is laughable and literally no one agrees with you. North van and lonsdale lack the height and density to be considered more "urban" than downtown Richmond. But you have a ridiculous bias against Richmond for some reason

North Vancouver's Lonsdale Avenue neighbourhood has great potential to be a major city centre as it already has a fair number of tall towers behind the major roads. However, it will never feel like a true downtown unless they demolish those single-storey retail units and replace them with large podium buildings alongside the street front. However. with the direction it is going, it will probably feel more like West End.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just like how New Orleans had been safe for a couple of hundred years....and then it just happened.

Not the same at all. If Richmond was so fragile, then it would be impossible to buy earthquake insurance there.

First, if New Orleans had been equipped with Richmond's pump system, then it would have survived its 🞵🞵🞵🞵 breach.

New Orleans is 20 feet below sea level, and has been sinking for centuries, and it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to survive a breach.

Richmond is 5 feet above sea level, and has been rising for 60 years due to land use policy, and it does have the necessary infrastructure to survive a breach.

In terms of sea level rise over the next 100+ years, one should worry more about Marpole and Delta, and less about Richmond.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, "literally no one agrees with me". Really, how many of you live in Richmond. The "downtown" is bland with nothing of any real character, a table top skyline all pumped out over the last 10-15 years with few interesting streetfront businesses and no focal point. No. 3 Road is more like Kingsway and then any downtown High Street. A mall across from a Skytrain station does not an urban core make.

Lower Lonsdale on the other hand has a real focal point on the water, historic buildings mixed with new and a new art gallery.

Urbanism has nothing to do with what the skyline looks like.

Richmond's downtown certainly depends on 3 Road, but I would argue less than North Van's depends on Lonsdale. It does have a focal point too - 3 and Westminster. Just because North Van's is pressed against water doesn't make it more urban.

[dleung]

Sigh, I actually have to agree with Whatnext...

Richmond is building a lot, but most of it is 🞵🞵🞵🞵. The recent stuff near the future Capstan station is horrendous. The stuff that North Van does build is on average better quality and more urban than in Richmond. Compare Blueshore Centre to the blank glass walls of Aberdeen Centre/Expansion. So no, Richmond is still less urban than Lonsdale for now. But it probably not for long - it's inevitable.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by dleung

Sigh, I actually have to agree with Whatnext...

Richmond is building a lot, but most of it is 🞵🞵🞵🞵. The recent stuff near the future Capstan station is horrendous. The stuff that North Van does build is on average better quality and more urban than in Richmond. Compare Blueshore Centre to the blank glass walls of Aberdeen Centre/Expansion. So no, Richmond is still less urban than Lonsdale for now. But it probably not for long - it's inevitable.

Neither of the areas you mentioned in Richmond are the downtown part. Although I wouldn't say the towers going up near Capstan Station are horrendous at all. But I digress, 3 Road and Westminster is the focal point. 4 corners with 1 tower on each (3 of them office towers so it has some economic muscle). That is where the downtown starts and moves outward. Londsdale doesn't even come close

[GlassCity]

Urbanism also has little to do with quality of architecture. Richmond has more dense residential corridors in its downtown, with more commercial street activity. That's really all "urban" means.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Urbanism has nothing to do with what the skyline looks like.

Richmond's downtown certainly depends on 3 Road, but I would argue less than North Van's depends on Lonsdale. It does have a focal point too - 3 and Westminster. Just because North Van's is pressed against water doesn't make it more urban.

No 3 and Westminster is the focal point of the city? That's depressing. Seriously, a London Drugs, a Vancity and a lot of traffic.

Urbanism has to do with a lot of things, including skyline. But as to street life, I'm sorry but there's not much. Who walks Richmond's high street? Other than from the transit station to the mall, very few. It's mostly get in your car and drive. Even point to point along 3 Road.

I wager I spent more years in Richmond than many defending it. Some boring residential midrises don't make a downtown.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by libtard

Neither of the areas you mentioned in Richmond are the downtown part. Although I wouldn't say the towers going up near Capstan Station are horrendous at all. But I digress, 3 Road and Westminster is the focal point. 4 corners with 1 tower on each (3 of them office towers so it has some economic muscle). That is where the downtown starts and moves outward. Londsdale doesn't even come close

Really? That's the problem, the so-called dense residential center sprawls out all over. From 3 Rd. and Bridgeport to 3 Rd. and Granville, from that awful new Walmart power centre to the Oval. Unwalkable and unattractive.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

No 3 and Westminster is the focal point of the city? That's depressing. Seriously, a London Drugs, a Vancity and a lot of traffic.

Urbanism has to do with a lot of things, including skyline. But as to street life, I'm sorry but there's not much. Who walks Richmond's high street? Other than from the transit station to the mall, very few. It's mostly get in your car and drive. Even point to point along 3 Road.

I wager I spent more years in Richmond than many defending it. Some boring residential midrises don't make a downtown.

I lived there for 8 years. I'm not saying it's an urban paradise by any stretch of the imagination, but again, after Vancouver and New West, it does have the most urban downtown. If you think Lonsdale beats it, that's fine, but is that really what all this is about?

Doesn't matter where it sits in everybody's ranking, point is, it is a successful example of an urban downtown in a suburb. It has a relatively dense grid network of streets, it has a dense collection of residential towers, many with ground floor retail. The Ceili's is always busy. Why does it matter why people are walking around there? Metrotown's pedestrian activity is mostly just foot traffic between the mall and the SkyTrain too.

It's nowhere close to New West, and it might be close enough to Lonsdale that an argument could be made for both, but I certainly don't think it's anything to sneeze at.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Really? That's the problem, the so-called dense residential center sprawls out all over. From 3 Rd. and Bridgeport to 3 Rd. and Granville, from that awful new Walmart power centre to the Oval. Unwalkable and unattractive.

So first it's too concentrated on 3 road, now it's too dispersed? Again, I'm not trying to pretend it's an authentic downtown urban experience, but it's far ahead of every other suburban downtown, except for New West and maybe Lonsdale. It's basically only 10 years old and look how far it's come already. In terms of planning, it's doing everything right. Feels more and more like a legitimate city centre every day.